Social media

[twoleftfeet]

Is social media overstepping the mark.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8973631/amp/Two-Oxford-academics-accuse-Facebook-censorship-article-warning.html

[Fox92]

Social media has always overstepped the mark. It's awful.

[twoleftfeet]

Censorship is dangerous.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, twoleftfeet said:

Censorship is dangerous.

 

[Wymsey]

Some have tried to persuade me to get back on Facebook (last logged in many years ago), but am having none of it..

 

Think they're the worst out there for tracking users' data behind their backs, failing to put down disgusting and horrible posts down as soon as immediately possible etc.

 

(Hope no one at Facebook reads this forum, and demands this post to be put down..  )

 

Can tolerate Twitter, as often read news etc updates on there on the move easily.

[CosbehFox]

In this example, no. It's Facebook's domain. Its' their call. If it was the government or an authorising body yes, but not when it's an optional medium of media. 

[Guest Harrydc]

Social media provides a voice to those who wouldn't have had one before. Despite all of the 'fake news' out there, social media also allows the truth to surface with the use of 'citizen journalism'. Take a look at George Flloyd for example, without new technologies and social media the movement for justice and equality wouldn't have had begun. 

[UniFox21]

15 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Social media provides a voice to those who wouldn't have had one before. Despite all of the 'fake news' out there, social media also allows the truth to surface with the use of 'citizen journalism'. Take a look at George Flloyd for example, without new technologies and social media the movement for justice and equality wouldn't have had begun. 

This isn't always a good thing

[SpacedX]

11 minutes ago, Harrydc said:

Social media provides a voice to those who wouldn't have had one before. Despite all of the 'fake news' out there, social media also allows the truth to surface with the use of 'citizen journalism'. Take a look at George Flloyd for example, without new technologies and social media the movement for justice and equality wouldn't have had begun. 

It can, but it also provides a voice for those with nothing worthwhile or informed to say that are rightfully ignored in the real world, whilst giving a platform for disinformation, extremists and frequently, dangerous hidden agendas. Moreover, as our own coronavirus thread is ample testimony to, in addition to outright deception, it manufactures confirmation bias and can prey upon the impressionable and the critically impaired who wouldn't know objectivity or 'truth' if it twatted them full on square in the face, stole their wallet, burnt their house down and shot their dog while it was dong it. Social media would be far less damaging if many of the individuals that use it actually understood the value of independent verification. 

 

Since its inception the main problem has been regulation. You Tube for example has for years incubated and nurtured dangerous conspiracy theory and pseudoscience which has been highly lucrative. Only now in the face of strong criticism and the prospect of imminent brand damage they have finally half-heartedly responded to calls to curtail this content, although almost through gritted teeth adding wiki and Encyclopedia Britannica extracts as a conciliatory gesture. Of course this simply perpetuates the deluded beliefs of paranoid conspiracy theorists that they are on to something. 

 

Free speech should be the noose by which the ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced and exploitative hang themselves, but in the echo-chambers that they create, those that elect to inhabit such dark places, however unwittingly, are often reinforcing similar internalised beliefs. 

 

[Jattdogg]

I have 0 social media. Well, this and whatsapp so facebook does got me to a point. 

 

Life is much better without it!

[SystonFox]

Alan sugars Twitter account is hilarious. 
 

as is Robbie savage at the moment for some reason..... I get it he wants young lads to be playing football at the moment with mates, I too help coach a kids team, but it’s a global pandemic mate have a word. It kills me my boy can’t play too but get over it! Stop bleating on and on

[Guest worth_the_wait]

1 hour ago, Harrydc said:

Social media provides a voice to those who wouldn't have had one before. Despite all of the 'fake news' out there, social media also allows the truth to surface with the use of 'citizen journalism'. Take a look at George Flloyd for example, without new technologies and social media the movement for justice and equality wouldn't have had begun. 

Hmm.   Depends on what you mean by 'truth'.  

 

I'd say the opposite is more likely.   Established media outlets ... newspapers, radio, TV etc may well have some sympathies (or bias), but they are strictly regulated, and can be sued in court for defamation, libel etc.  Compare this to the wild west anarchy of social media.

[Webbo]

Not sure where to put this, but this thread is the best fit available. The mother of a couple of kids that my eldest was friendly with at junior school, died this weekend. Now my kids haven't really seen them much since they left school 10 years ago.

One of my daughters asked me if she should leave them a message on Facebook. I said no, I think it'd be condescending when they've not been close for years. Obviously I'm sad for the kids but I just don't think it's appropriate. What do you reckon?

[Jimothy]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not sure where to put this, but this thread is the best fit available. The mother of a couple of kids that my eldest was friendly with at junior school, died this weekend. Now my kids haven't really seen them much since they left school 10 years ago.

One of my daughters asked me if she should leave them a message on Facebook. I said no, I think it'd be condescending when they've not been close for years. Obviously I'm sad for the kids but I just don't think it's appropriate. What do you reckon?

I agree. Its weird when people you haven't spoken to in years react to things like that on social media. I'm not saying its why your kids would do it, but I think at times it because other can see it people think it makes them look more compassionate. Stops being about the person who's actually lost someone and more about the person sending the message.

 

Then again people sharing their loss on Facebook is weird too. Its a private thing imo. Maybe afterwards, on birthdays and anniversaries put a post up, but I can't think of anything I'd want to less straight after losing a close relative than stick it on Facebook.

[Gubbins]

Anyone watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix? Social media hasnt so much over stepped the mark as leaped right over it!

[UpTheLeagueFox]

50 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

people sharing their loss on Facebook is weird too. Its a private thing imo. Maybe afterwards, on birthdays and anniversaries put a post up, but I can't think of anything I'd want to less straight after losing a close relative than stick it on Facebook.

Not sure I agree.

It can be very comforting to receive supportive messages when you're in the darkest moments. I've been there.

Sometimes they even make you smile and that can help with the slow healing process.

It's also a good way to keep in contact with people who you like but don't see often.

 

The constant "oversharing" of everything on a daily basis is the thing which irks me.

People get so addicted they share every thought, every photo, every funny thing they find.

FB should have a "Before you post this, will anyone truly care?" button to filter out some of the dross.

 

 

One other thing, I mentioned on Twitter the other day that I'd had a good half hour catch up with Neville Foulger on the phone. The response was quite phenomenal.

I printed off all the replies, mainly from people he didn't know (ie older Radio Leicester listeners) - it took up four pages of A4 - and sent them to Nev.

He text me yesterday to say he was "blown away" by the messages and it had cheered him up during lockdown.

So at times it can be a force for good.

[CosbehFox]

9 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I agree. Its weird when people you haven't spoken to in years react to things like that on social media. I'm not saying its why your kids would do it, but I think at times it because other can see it people think it makes them look more compassionate. Stops being about the person who's actually lost someone and more about the person sending the message.

 

Then again people sharing their loss on Facebook is weird too. Its a private thing imo. Maybe afterwards, on birthdays and anniversaries put a post up, but I can't think of anything I'd want to less straight after losing a close relative than stick it on Facebook.

In my case, Facebook was the quickest way of announcing the news to everyone of a loss  and equally controlling the rumour mill of Karen’s and Dave’s with it 

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, Webbo said:

Not sure where to put this, but this thread is the best fit available. The mother of a couple of kids that my eldest was friendly with at junior school, died this weekend. Now my kids haven't really seen them much since they left school 10 years ago.

One of my daughters asked me if she should leave them a message on Facebook. I said no, I think it'd be condescending when they've not been close for years. Obviously I'm sad for the kids but I just don't think it's appropriate. What do you reckon?

 

With the big proviso that different generations see things differently and we're a different generation to your daughters and the bereaved kids......I agree that posting a public message on Facebook when you've had little recent contact would feel crass to me, or even bordering on offensive. But maybe not if the bereaved young people have chosen to post something public about their loss and the words are well chosen?

 

However, I definitely wouldn't see a private message sent via Facebook in the same way. I think that would depend on the nature of the long-ago relationship. If an old friend I'd not spoken to for ages sent me a private message expressing sympathy about a loss and remembering old times, I'd be quite touched, I think.

 

On the issue of people sharing a loss publicly on Facebook, I reckon it's down to individual personality. Would be helpful to some, but seem awful to others. Personally, I'd be more with @UpTheLeagueFox than with @Facecloth on this one. When my parents died a few years ago, I didn't post anything on Facebook as, with people who knew me or my parents to any extent, I let them know personally. But I did post about it on FoxesTalk - and did find it comforting, in a small way, to get expressions of sympathy from people on here who I'd conversed with but never met.

 

Both with bereavements and my divorce, my instinct has been to talk to people about them - whether I know them well or not. If anything, I've found that some people I've spoken to have found it awkward that I've started conversations about "sensitive private issues". To me, talking openly seems to be part of the process of recognising what has happened, its importance and coming to terms with it so as to be able to gradually get on with life. But I know some people are quite the opposite. My brother never seemed to want to talk about our parents' death, and a good mate who recently lost his mother has been the same. The odd thing with my brother and me is that, when growing up, I was the one who bottled things up and he was more outgoing - we seem to have swapped personalities in adulthood. 

[FoxesDeb]

I think social media is both one of the best, and one of the worst, things to have been developed. Without a doubt it has changed our world, but not always for the better. There are so many examples where it has done wonders, from major changes like Marcus Rashford's recent campaign right down to the kid on Facebook whose dropped keys are found in the park and reunited with them. But then we have the other end of the spectrum, which in my opinion is pretty dangerous.

 

We have plenty of examples on here of opinion being posted as fact, and people jumping on said fact without any reputable evidence to back it up, and repeating it over and over again as such, despite it being refuted with actual fact to the contrary. It's a dangerous game to play when so many people are impressionable, may be even a bit gullible, and these people are not able to decide for themselves if what they have read is true or not. For every person who actually posts on here there are possibly hundreds of 'lurkers', and many of them probably quite young, vulnerable, impressionable, or a combination of all of them.

 

Previously when socialising had to take place in well, social circumstances, there would be a group of, say, 6 mates down the pub together. There's always one who has a loud opinion and likes to pass it off as fact, it's all about the laughs eh lads? Trying to be popular? His 5 mates may lap it up, but that's where it stays really, between that group. But with the advent of social media these people have a voice much louder and much farther reaching, and this is where it becomes dangerous if what they are offering as fact is at worst complete nonsense, or at best, just their opinion.  We also have people trawling Twitter for tweets designed to get a reaction without any real understanding of what they are actually posting, and again when they are challenged it gets overlooked, but it's too late then, people have again lapped it up, and from then on just seem to regurgitate it as fact.

 

There comes a point when people get tired of refuting the nonsense, as it just falls upon deaf ears, and so I do think there should be some kind of control over facts being posted as opinion, all over social media, for the sake of everyone.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with people having differing opinions, as long as it is made clear that they are just that, opinions, and not presented as facts.